January 21, 1997

The Panther Prints

Digging Up Dirt on The Soc/Anth Rant

By Jennifer Caseley

Twenty years ago the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Univer- sity of Prince Edward Island started to have problems be- tween faculty members. The result of these problems was the implementation of a rotat- ing departmental chair wherein each member of the department would hold the position of chair for a period of twelve months. This _rota- tion of ‘power’ was supposed to eliminate problems of au- thority within the department. This new initiative however, did not do what was hoped.

In an external study of the department conducted in 1991, it was recommended by Pieter de Vries, Chair of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology for Concordia University that the department move to a three-year term for the departmental chair, and that the department look ex- ternally for such a chair.

ternauly IOr sucu a Cia.

Finally in the spring of 1995, Dr. Satadal Dasgupta, a tenured professor at UPEI, entered into his three-year ro- tation as chair.

Professors at UPEI have been known to merely shake their heads when hearing of the antics going on in the Soc/ Anth Department, but perhaps: it is time the University’s ad- ministration take a closer look at what is really going on.

The stories below rep- Tesent a few of the problems the department of Sociology/ Anthropology has had since the fall of 1995. The names of most of the students have been changed because they fear ret-

ribution from their professors. _

“Rules of Conduct” Rachel MacDonald* didn’t understand one of the

concepts presented to her in _ class so she asked for help. — That was Rachel’s s first mis- E

take.

Rachel is a manic de- pressive and the course of events leading up to her break down have caused some con- cern for the students at the University of Prince Edward Island.

‘rules of conduct' would infringe on students' academic freedom.

Inthe fall of 1995 Rachel was enrolled in Anthropology 201 (Cultural Anthropology). Part of the course work in- volved an essay question on the concept of culture. Con- fused by the question, Rachel approached her professor, Dr. Holbrook for help. Still un- sure of the concept Rachel then

SULC VL ULS VULILU PE Nau Ud approached a second profes- sor in the Sociology/Anthro- pology department for help- Dr. Wolf offered his view on the subject and lent Rachel two books on the subject. After his meeting with Rachel, Wolf was approached by Holbrook who stated that Wolf's “behaviour constituted

“an unwarranted intrusion into

his class, and as such, was both unprofessional and uncollegial.”

On the afternoon of October 31, 1995 Rachel once again sought Wolf's help. According to Rachel, Holbrook had given her a fail- ing mark because she had asked another professor for help.

No where in the rules of the university does is state that a student may not seek

help from another professor.

According to a letter Wolf wrote to Dr. Elizabeth

_ Epperly, President of UPEI in

March of 1996, he had had a meeting with Dr. Satadal Dasgupta, Chair of the Sociol- ogy/Anthropology Depart- ment, where Dasgupta had asked Wolf to divorce himself from the concerns of Rachel MacDonald.

In the Sociology/An- thropology departmental meeting held November 1, 1995 “Holbrook reported an item he viewed as both indi- vidual and immediate concern: the fact that one of his stu- dents had sought and received guidance writing a paper for Holbrook, from a professor in Soc-Anth in lieu of Holbrook, without indication to Holbrook. After some discus- sion, it was agreed that each professor contribute rules for professional conductto be con- sidered at a future meeting.”

The whole ordeal was more than Rachel could han- dle and within two weeks of receiving a mark of 49% on a

ars nee me atten

paper, her manic depression took over and she was hospi- talised. Rachel felt she had failed because she had dared ask another professor for help. The stress of the ordeal was too much for her-she suffered a mental breakdown.

Two of the student reps at the meeting that discussed whether or not it is appropri- ate for a student to ask another professor for help wrote let- ters to the President of the university to voice their con- cern over the “student rules of conduct”. One rep felt that Holbrook had tried to force his views on her and that she did not think it “...democratic, for Holbrook to present his case and demand something be done about it without hav- ing heard from Prof. Wolf, the other professor involved, and Rachel MacDonald, the stu- dent.” ; The second student rep at the meeting felt that these

> <<,

‘rules of conduct’ “would in- fringe on students’ academic freedom.”

According to Michael Drake, a third Soc/Anth stu- dent who was at the meeting, the rules never surfaced. Drake said that the student reps who were at the meeting dis- cussed their views with the professors and so the idea to form rules was dropped. When asked if there were any prob- lems in the department Drake responded that “if there was any problem within the de- partment, believe me, I would tell you about it.”

“Missed Exam” Unfortunately for stu- dents in the department of Sociology/Anthropology this was not the only incident of concern. The final examina- tion for Anthropology 211 scheduled for Thursday, De- cember 14, 1995 never took place. The professor did not

show up.

[there is a| history of some difficulty within the department.

Students showed up for the exam only to find that there was no professor, no proctor, and no exam. After twenty minutes calls were placed to the secretary of the depart- ment but she was not in and there was no call forwarding in place; so students left the exam room and went to the registrars office where they were told to go home and that someone would contact them.

One student relates the phone call her parents received from Dasgupta, the Chair of the Department, ina letter to President Epperly. The stu- dent who asked that her name

not be mentioned until her graduation from the univer- sity, stated that the phone call left her parents visibly upset and believing that if she did not just agree to what ever terms Dr. Dasgupta suggested, that he could compromise her graduation in some manner. The student further states that she was furious with Dasgupta’s actions, “I believe that as an adult any options or comments....should have been directed to me not my elderly parents. I have always been under the assumption that the contract is between this Uni- versity and myself...”

Although Dr. Epperly did call and apologize the next day, the student felt that the apology should have come from Dasgupta, not the Presi- dent of the University.

This letter is not the only letter of complaint that the President has received from a student in the Soc/Anth de- partment. In a letter to the President from Martha Martinic*, a student rep for the department, Martinic states that “We [students] are very troubled about the profes- sional, or should I say, un- professional conduct of cer- tain professors. The politick- ing and personal vendettas between professors within the sociology/anthropology de- partment is affecting the stu- dents.”

The issue of Rachel MacDonald as well as her opinion of the “student rules of conduct” as an intrusion on

students academic freedom, .

were also referred to by Martinic.

Also in her letter: to Epperly, Martinic mentioned that “‘{I] strongly believe that

the only way we can begin to repair this departments repu 3

Continued on Page 4 Digging

aoe